(May 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: His experience only would matter if he had something other than his story to tell as evidence.

As such, the bite marks and other physical trauma may be evidence, but even then there is a degree of uncertainty involved.

They are most certainly evidence, just like blurry photos of a giant hominid shaped something constitutes evidence for Bigfoot, it's just poor quality evidence that is better explained by ~P.

---

(May 10, 2011 at 11:04 pm)Whirling Moat Wrote: Well I intended to add his collegiate pedigree to buttress a certain aspect of the story. I wanted it to be relatively clear that his beliefs would be based on subjective experience and some real analysis of the situation..A trained scientist will probably consider that he may be experiencing a delusion..If he is satisfied after analysis that the event is real it would probable result from careful study.

Which would be along the lines of what I did below, if he carefully considered the evidence he would see that his experience is more likely given delusion and therefore conclude it was one. If he came back with a time machine or something though... That would be evidence that is much more likely if he met time traveling Oolak.

Quote:Exactly, except let us say that at some point he did consider the angle that the experience was subjective only and by some method became satisfied that the experience did in fact occur outside of himself..

Then you would have to present the method and not just assert that he used some undefined method to determine that his experience was in objective reality. I bet you could find no method to do so, let alone inside a psychotic episode. I have an acquaintance who stayed at my flat for a week, he was studying law at university when he had a completely unexpected psychotic break during a Christmas family lunch and developed schizophrenia. In his delusions he simply cannot tell what is real or not, no matter how much he thinks about it and he has delusions that are clearly not in objective reality, he believes he is the entire country of Israel...

So not only can a person tell what the cause of such an experience is, real or imaginary, but there is really no analysis that they could do that would rationally determine that his experience was not subjective other than considering how likely each hypothesis is given the available evidence.

Quote:I guess my question would be is it possible to reduce the probabilty of ~P from an interior (subjective) standpoint, or should the rule be that any conclusion reached which cannot be corrobotated by others is subject to exponentially higher scrutiny and should be treated with skepticism when the claim is extraordinary even if the claim is verified by atleast one person of sound mind.

Short answer, No. He had an experience with numerous possible causes and simply experiencing something is not good evidence that it happened one way or the other.

Corroboration with others isn't something I used to decide the probability that P < ~P so it's not really relevant to this scenario, it would certainly change the probability of P if another person who had also never heard of Ookla had the same experience(E1) and came back with alloy eyebrows(E3), it would also upshift the probability of 'evil scientist abducts people and implants memories' and a number of other possible scenarios - The only probability it would downshift is that of a delusion, two identical delusions happening to strangers with no prior knowledge of the subject matter and coming back with alloy in their eyebrows in far more unlikely than it happening to one person.

Quote:Further, if the person conducting the test is the claimant, any results form the test other than ~P should be discarded

What test? How would it work? We can't simply assert at this point that he has a reliable method to determine if it was objective of subjective because that changes the original scenario - If you believe that he is rational because of method X you must present X so we can see if it it's logic sound and valid.

(May 10, 2011 at 10:14 am)Whirling Moat Wrote: Peace...

Professor Neihl Jackson, a man of impeccable character, and good standing within the academic community, under oath and during a polygraph examination declared that a meeting occured between himself and Ookla the Mok, (which was also attended briefly by Thundar the Barbarian), wherein he received strict instructions via Ookla from Princess Ariel which warned of an approaching doom for all Earthlings who refused to remove their eyebrows and replace them with stitched on denim infused with aluminum foil. For this meeting he was transported to the future and spent 30 days in the world of Thundar and Ookla..he was even bitten by a strange Rat-lizard hybrid animal which left a very distinctive scar on his shoulder which remained after his return to his own time...

After a thorough medical examination it was determined that Dr. jackson was perfectly fit, and seemed to be in his right mind. The memory was real for him..of course his eyebrows were shave and he had the unusual denim/aluminum foil thing going on..

Would it be rational for him to believe? Would it be rational for others who knew of his impeccable character and good mind to become believers? Would it be rational for others who expereinced the same thing?

The answer to all three questions is no. In fact I would discount all of Professor Jackson's impeccable character and academic prowess if I learned that he himself was not questioning his OWN rationality.

One could argue that a truly logical and rational mind could never accept what he himself perceives to be real when he knows that any other rational mind would find such magical occurences impossible.

The only thing that would make belief in God rational were if there were some kind of evidence showing that he existed. It's like an article I wrote comparing belief in God to believing the sun exists. We know the sun exists, we can see it every day (except people in Britain ), we know that it's the source of all life on earth. In other words, there's ample evidence that it exists. If someone were to claim that it didn't, then they'd be irrational. But since there's no factual evidence of any gods existing, it's not rational to believe in them. I mean, we can't just point up in the sky and say, "See? There's God."

No.

That doesnt mean it is bad, per se, as in irrational can bring great fun and humor into your life

(May 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: No.

That doesnt mean it is bad, per se, as in irrational can bring great fun and humor into your life

If they'd keep their irrationality to themselves I'd be leavin' them alone.

(May 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(May 11, 2011 at 5:59 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: No.

That doesnt mean it is bad, per se, as in irrational can bring great fun and humor into your life

If they'd keep their irrationality to themselves I'd be leavin' them alone.

I'm glad that some people can read between the lines



KUDOS Gawdzilla

Peace...

Quote:Which would be along the lines of what I did below, if he carefully considered the evidence he would see that his experience is more likely given delusion and therefore conclude it was one. If he came back with a time machine or something though... That would be evidence that is much more likely if he met time traveling Oolak.

~P is more likely from an objective point of view. A scientist however is not trained to ignore evidence which suggests the existence of an anamolous occurance simply because it is extremely irregular. Therefore from a cursory view ~P is the best option, however, as you have indicated, if there is additional evidence substantiating the claim, the claim becomes more credible. If experimentation which includes repeatabilty justifies a conclusion which supports P, it would not be reasonalbe to ignore the results because of what would thereafter be an extremely reduced set of ~P. What Dr. Jackson would lack is the benefit of peer review and corroboration. So on one hand he the benefit of the scientific method and on the other he lacks objective review. The question I posed was #1 would it be reasonable for Dr. Jackson to believe his own account considering the full magnitude of E(1) thru E(3).

Quote:Then you would have to present the method and not just assert that he used some undefined method to determine that his experience was in objective reality. I bet you could find no method to do so, let alone inside a psychotic episode.

theVOID, I get why you would be inclined to review the process, however, I don't think it helps to define it since it is most probable that any experiment would have occured within the delusion and the results would probably be completely unreliable. With that said, let us assume that he remembers using the finest methods and also recalls being meticulous in performaning all test.

I would like to establish first if it is irrational for S to believe P. I support the position P < ~P and that upon first glance this should be the initial determination of everyone including S, however, as was stated previously, the degree of improbability reduces with the presentation of good evidence supporting P. The question here is who must evaluate the evidence to make P > ~P for S ?

Quote:So not only can a person tell what the cause of such an experience is, real or imaginary, but there is really no analysis that they could do that would rationally determine that his experience was not subjective other than considering how likely each hypothesis is given the available evidence.

I think we are on the same page here...Now...lets further this.

Let us now say that after intense medical and psychological evaluation it was determined that poor Dr. Jackson, like the fictional character Lemuel Gulliver was diagnosed as one suffering from some form of mental defect, and was admitted into a psychiatric facility for care...While there, Ookla appears with Thundarr, and transports Dr. Jackson to Philadelphia in the year 1778 A.D... Dr. Jackson is provided new attire, however, he mistakenly places the business card of one of his physicians in his pocket. While in Philadelphia of 1778 his assignment is to warn the scientific community of the impending doom. While there he is quickly arrested and examined by the local physicians.The doctors of 1778 come to the same conclusion as those in the present.. mental defect..He is thoroughly ridiculed and told repeatedly that he is not from the year 2011 at all since that would be impossible..

Within this period of time (1778), P must include any belief suggesting that S is from the year 2011. Despite the clarity S has when he recalls automobiles, computers, movies, the NFL, airplanes, microwaves, et al. None of the aforementioned are known to any of those in 1778 which makes the portion of P which deals with S being from 2011 as unlikely as S being transported to the future to meet Ooklah the Mok . It would be irrational for Dr. jackson to believe that he was from the year 2011 and that he ever experienced any of the aforesaid technology. Just as he is grappling with this, he remembers the business card which clearly includes a telephone number and an email address printed in raised font. all he has to confirm his story is the eyebrow job, his memories, and a business card...From this perspective would the previous logic still apply? Would it be rational or irrational for S to believe P ?



Whirling Moat